The  Indians  of  the  Southwest 
in  the  Diplomacy  of  the 
United  States  and  Mexico, 
1848-1853 


By 


J.  FRED  RIPPY 


Reprinted  from  The  Hispanic  Afnerican  Historical  Review, 
Vol.  II,  No.  3,  August,  1919 


Bancroft  Llbrery 


Reprinted  from  THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW,  Vol.  II,  No.  3,  August,  1919 


THE  INDIANS  OF  THE  SOUTHWEST  IN  THE 

DIPLOMACY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

AND  MEXICO,  1848-18531 

Article  XL  of  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo. — The  chief  sub- 
jects of  diplomatic  discussion  between  the  United  States  and 
Mexico  from  1848  to  1853  grew  out  of  three  points  which  the  treaty 
of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo  failed  to  settle  in  a  satisfactory  manner. 
These  were  the  disposition  of  the  Indians  in  the  territory  which 
changed  sovereignty,  the  marking  of  the  boundary,  and  the  ques- 
tion of  interoceanic  communication  by  way  of  the  Isthmus  of 
Tehuantepec.  By  Article  XI.  of  the  treaty,  the  United  States 
government  assumed  responsibility  for  the  Indians  residing  im- 
mediately north  of  the  new  boundary.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this 
paper  to  consider  the  efforts  of  that  government  to  meet  this 
obligation,  its  ultimate  failure,  and  its  final  release  from  what  was 
discovered  to  be  a  bad  bargain. 

The  main  provisions  of  the  rather  lengthy  article  may  be 
summed  up  as  follows: 

1.  The  United  States  agreed  to  restrain  the  Indians  ranging 
along  the  international  border  and  within  its  limits  from  their 
incursions  upon  Mexico  and  to  punish  and  exact  satisfaction  for 
such  incursions  when  they  could  not  be  prevented. 

2.  It  was  to  be  unlawful  for  inhabitants  of  the  United  States 
to  purchase  captives  or  property  taken  by  Indians  from  Mexico. 

3.  In  case  Mexican  captives  were  brought  into  its  territory, 
the  United  States  was  to  rescue  them  and  return  them  to  the 
proper  Mexican  authorities. 

4.  The  United  States  was  to  pass  without  delay  all  laws  neces- 
sary to  the  enforcement  of  these  provisions  and,  hi  the  removal 

1  The  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge  his  indebtedness  to  Dr.  Charles  E.  Chap- 
man, at  whose  suggestion  this  monograph  was  undertaken,  and  to  Dr.  Herbert 
E.  Bolton,  whose  seminar  papers  he  has  freely  used. 

363 


364  THE    HISPANIC   AMEEICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

of  the  Indians,  the  protection  of  Mexico  was  ever  to  be  borne  in 
mind.2 

Factors  Leading  to  the  Acceptance  of  the  Article. — In  his  message 
of  December  7,  1847,  President  Polk,  seeking  to  justify  the  claim 
of  the  United  States  to  New  Mexico,  suggested  that  Mexico 
might  even  desire  to  place  the  province  under  the  United  States, 
for  she  had  been,  and  was  at  that  time,  too  weak  to  restrain  the 
wild  Indians  from  their  depredations  upon  it  as  well  as  upon  other 
North  Mexican  States.  "If  New  Mexico  were  held  and  governed 
by  the  United  States",  Polk  argued,  "we  could  prevent  these 
tribes  from  committing  such  outrages  and  compel  them  to 
release  the  captives  and  to  restore  them  to  then-  families  and 
friends".3  While  negotiations  were  in  progress,  the  delegation  of 
Chihuahua  had  recommended  that  "no  treaty  be  concluded 
.  which  shall  [should]  not  establish  sufficient  security  that 
neither  the  government  of  the  United  States,  nor  the  citizens 
thereof,  shall  [should]  buy  from  the  savages  the  plunder  obtained 
from  robberies  committed  within  Mexican  territory,  nor  furnish 
them  .  .  .  with  means  for  making  war,  nor  drive  them  upon 
our  territory  by  purchasing  from  them  their  lands,  nor  favor  their 
incursions  directly  or  indirectly".4 

In  commenting  upon  the  article,  Trist,  the  American  negotia- 
tor, declared  that  the  assumption  of  responsibility  for  the  Indi- 
ans was  "indispensable  to  make  the  treaty  acceptable  to  the 
northern  States  [of  Mexico],  or  to  any  who  take  the  proper  inter- 
est in  their  security;  in  a  word,  to  anyone  who  has  the  feelings 
of  a  Mexican  citizen,  or  at  least  respect  for  the  obligation  wKich 
a  federal  union  imposes".5  At  the  same  tune  he  sought  to  lighten 
anticipated  opposition  on  the  part  of  his  home  government  by 
suggesting  that  the  obligation  did  not  differ  essentially  from  that 
assumed  by  the  33d  article  of  the  treaty  of  amity,  commerce  and 
navigation  of  1831.  In  the  new  treaty,  he  maintained  that  it  had 
"the  character  of  a  practical  law,  agreed  upon  and  established 

2  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  Conventions,  etc.  (Washington,  1910),  I.  1112-1113. 

*  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  1,  30th  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  11;  House  Ex.  Doc.  8,  ibid.,  p.  55. 
4  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  52,  30th  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  176. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  293. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED   STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  365 

upon  serious  consideration  of  its  requirements,  and  in  the  bona 
fide  intention  that  these  shall  [should]  be  fulfilled".6 

When  Article  XI.  came  up  in  the  Senate  it  occasioned  consid- 
erable debate.  Attempts  were  made  to  strike  out  one  paragraph 
after  another  until  virtually  the  whole  was  embraced.  Excepting 
the  clause  which  made  it  unlawful  for  any  inhabitant  of  the 
United  States  to  furnish  the  Indians  with  firearms  or  ammuni- 
tion, however,  all  these  attempts  failed.7  Secretary  of  State 
Buchanan,  in  a  letter  to  the  Mexican  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions, assigned  a  humanitarian  motive  for  the  Senate's  action  in 
regard  to  this  clause.  "This  amendment  was  adopted  on  a  prin- 
ciple of  humanity.  These  Indians  must  live  by  the  chase;  and 
without  firearms  they  cannot  secure  the  means  of  subsistence. 
Indeed,  for  the  want  of  such  arms  the  extremity  of  hunger  and 
suffering  might  drive  them  to  commit  the  very  depredations 
which  the  treaty  seeks  to  avoid,  and  to  make  incursions  for 
food  either  upon  the  Mexican  or  American  settlements".8 

In  the  same  paragraph  Buchanan  asserted  that  his  govern- 
ment possessed  "both  the  ability  and  the  will  to  restrain  the 
Indians  within  the  extended  limits  of  the  United  States  from 
making  incursions  into  Mexican  territories  as  well  as  to  execute 
all  the  other  stipulations  of  the  eleventh  article".  During  the 
next  few  years  Mexican  officials  were  to  question  the  "will"  and 
the  United  States  was  to  have  its  eyes  opened  as  to  the  "ability" 
required  to  restrain  the  Indians  in  question. 

The  Indians  of  the  International  Border. — There  were  in  the 
territory  acquired  by  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  the  treaty  of 
1848  some  160,000  Indians.9  By  no  means  all  of  them  were 
within  reach  of  the  Mexican  border  and  a  great  number  were 
semi-civilized  or  docile,  but  the  wildest  and  most  cruel  habitually 
lived  upon  the  fruits  of  the  chase  and  upon  plunder  taken  from 
the  inhabitants  of  northern  Mexico.  The  Apaches  and  Coman- 

6  Ibid.,  p.  293. 

7  Ibid.,  pp.  11-13. 

8  Globe,  30th  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  494. 

9  Report  of  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  November  26,  1853,  in  House  Ex. 
Doc.  1,  part  I,  33d  cong.,  2d  sess.}  p.  243. 


366  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

ches,  especially,  and  to  a  lesser  degree  the  Utahs,  Navajos,  Kio- 
was,  and  Yumas,  had  been  from  Spanish  times  the  terror  of  the 
northern  frontier.10  These  tribes,  moreover,  were  often  at  war 
with  each  other  and  with  the  semi-civilized  Indians,  so  that  by 
the  acquisition  of  the  new  territory  the  United  States  assumed 
the  three-fold  task  of  keeping  them  at  peace  with  each  other,  pro- 
tecting its  own  citizens  from  their  outrages,  and  restraining  the 
wild  tribes  from  their  accustomed  depredations  upon  Mexico. 
This  task  was  complicated  and  rendered  more  difficult  by  moun- 
tain, desert,  and  summer's  heat,  by  Mexican  sympathizers  re- 
siding along  the  border  and  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States, 
by  somewhat  unscrupulous  traders  and  "  land-grabbers",  by 
conflict  between  state  and  federal  as  well  as  civil  and  military  au- 
thority and,  finally,  by  lack  of  any  agreement  between  the  United 
States  and  Mexico  for  reciprocal  crossing  of  the  border  in  pursuit 
of  the  depredating  bands.11 

Congressional  Action. — In  regard  to  the  Indians  of  the  Southwest, 
Congress,  busy  with  quarrels  over  the  status  of  slavery,  was  slow 
in  forming  a  definite  policy.  Indeed  a  consistent  policy  was  not 
pursued  until  after  Article  XI.  had  already  been  abrogated.  At 
the  close  of  the  Mexican  War  there  were  in  Texas  one  agent  and 
two  interpreters,12  while  in  New  Mexico  and  California  there 
was  none.  Eighteen  months  after  the  ratification  of  the  Guada- 
lupe  Hidalgo  treaty  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  reported 
that,  since  Congress  had  failed  to  provide  agents  for  the  Indians 
of  New  Mexico  and  California,  it  had  been  necessary  to  appoint 
three  sub-agents  and  to  transfer  two  agents  from  the  upper  Mis- 
souri. This  had  been  done  with  the  obligations  imposed  by  the 
late  treaty  with  Mexico  in  mind.13  On  September  30,  1850, 

10  Bancroft,  North  Mexican  States  and  Texas  (San  Francisco,  1886-1889),  II. 
593  et  seq;  El  Universal,  June  3  and  July  22,  1849. 

11  Annie  H.  Abel,  The  Official  Correspondence  of  James  S.  Calhoun  while  Indian 
Agent  at  Santa  Fe  and  Superintentent  of  Indian  Affairs  in  New  Mexico  (Washington, 
1915),  pp.  50-51,  250,  260,  379,  421^22,  431,  438,  445-455  passim;  Senate  Ex.  Doc. 
1,  31st  cong.,2d  sess.,  p.  43;  El  Universal,  January  13, 1853.    The  Indians  of  Cali- 
fornia, excepting  those  living  near  Yuma  Junction,  seem  not  to  have  made  in- 
cursions into  Mexico,  and  may  therefore  be  disregarded  here. 

12  9  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  204. 

13  Globe,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  opp.,  p.  27. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED    STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  367 

$25,000  were  appropriated  for  treating  with  the  Indians  of  Cali- 
fornia, two  more  agents  and  two  more  interpreters  were  author- 
ized for  Texas,  and  the  sum  of  $30,000  was  set  aside  to  meet  the 
expense  of  procuring  information  and  collecting  statistics  neces- 
sary to  the  Indian  Bureau  and  for  making  treaties  with  and 
presents  to  the  Indians  of  the  United  States  upon  the  borders  of 
Mexico.14  The  work  of  the  commission  appointed  under  this 
bill  was  cut  short,  however,  by  the  failure  of  Congress  to  make 
an  appropriation  for  its  continuance  during  the  next  year,  and  it 
disbanded  in  August,  1851,  without  having  accomplished  any- 
thing definite.15 

During  the  discussion  of  this  bill  in  the  House,  Congress  was 
criticised  for  its  dilatory  policy.  Representative  Johnson  of  Ar- 
kansas said  that  although  two  years  had  elapsed  since  the  peace 
with  Mexico,  this  was  the  first  step  taken  since  then  to  obtain 
any  knowledge  of  the  newly  acquired  Indians,  and  that  he  con- 
sidered it  economy  to  spend  $30,000  for  this  purpose  when  a 
single  incursion  into  Mexico  might  cost  many  tunes  that  amount. 
The  bill  was  opposed  on  the  ground  that  it  would  increase  the 
number  of  public  offices  and  consequently  the  executive  patron- 
age, and  that  the  work  could  be  done  by  the  Indian  agents  or 
sub-agents,  or  by  the  members  and  escort  of  the  commission  au- 
thorized to  survey  the  boundary  between  the  United  States  and 
Mexico.16 

In  regard  to  the  Indian  affairs  of  the  newly  acquired  domain, 
one  of  the  crying  needs  was  the  extension  to  the  tribes  of  Texas 
and  New  Mexico  of  the  provisions  of  the  law  regulating  trade 
and  intercourse  and  preserving  peace  with  the  Indians.17  In  his 
annual  report  for  1849,  the  Secretary  of  Interior  had  urged  that 
Congress  make  some  arrangement  with  Texas  whereby  the  laws 
governing  the  natives  might  be  extended  to  its  territory.  Until 
this  had  been  done,  he  maintained  that  the  efforts  of  his  depart- 
ment to  secure  the  extensive  frontier  from  depredations,  and  to 

14  9  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  555-558. 

16  House  Ex.  Doc.  2,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  302-306. 

16  Globe,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  1515-1517. 

17  For  this  law,  see  4  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  729-735. 


368  THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 

give  the  adjacent  provinces  of  Mexico  the  protection  stipulated 
by  the  treaty  of  1848  would  be  in  vain.18  James  S.  Calhoun,  In- 
dian agent  at  Santa  Fe,  registered  complaint  after  complaint 
against  unscrupulous  traders  who  not  only  inflamed  the  minds 
of  the  Indians  against  the  authorities,  but  gave  them  firearms  in 
exchange  for  plunder  and  captives  taken  from  Mexico.19  The 
Mexican  authorities  likewise  complained  of  traders  and  speculat- 
ors who  lived  among  the  Indians  of  Texas  and  bought  their 
spoils.20  Yet  it  was  not  until  February  27,  1851,  that  the  de- 
sired regulations  were  applied  to  New  Mexico21  and  they  were 
not  extended  to  Texas  until  after  the  Gadsden  treaty  had  re- 
lieved the  United  States  from  responsibility  for  the  Indians 
under  consideration. 

Moreover,  in  Texas  a  somewhat  peculiar  situation  arose  from 
the  fact  that  upon  entering  the  Union  that  State  retained  con- 
trol over  its  public  lands.  These  had  been  surveyed  and  sold 
until  the  Indians  had  become  alarmed  lest  none  should  be  left 
for  them,  and  had  been  made  to  feel  that  plunder  was  the  only 
means  of  gaining  a  subsistence.22  In  September,  1850  a  bill  to 
extend  to  Texas  the  benefits  of  the  general  act  of  1834  regarding 
Indian  affairs  passed  the  Senate.  After  being  given  a  second 
reading  in  the  House  it  died,  apparently,  in  the  hands  of  the 
Committee  on  Indian  Affairs.23  Indian  Commissioner  Luke  Lea, 
in  his  annual  report  for  1850,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  law 
of  1834  could  not  be  applied  to  Texas  without  the  consent  of  the 
legislature  of  that  State.  While  Congress  had  power  under  the 
constitution  to  regulate  trade  with  the  Indians,  yet  there  was  a 
question  in  his  mind  as  to  whether  that  power  could  be  exercised 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  punish  the  citizens  of  Texas  for  trespass- 
ing upon  lands  occupied  by  the  Indians  or  trading  with  them  with- 
out government  license.  Therefore,  he  urged  that  a  commission 

18  Globe,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  opp.,  p.  23. 

19  Abel,  Official  Correspondence  of  James  S.  Calhoun,  pp.  50-51, 105-106, 160-162. 

20  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  p.  328;  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  1,  part 
II.,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  20-23. 

21  9  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  587. 

22  House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  part  II.,  32d  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  35. 

23  Globe,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  1727. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED   STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  369 

be  appointed  to  confer  with  Texas  with  reference  to  the  adjust- 
ment of  Indian  affairs.24  On  January  27,  1852,  a  bill  bearing  the 
same  title  as  that  of  the  previous  September  was  introduced  in  the 
Senate  and  given  the  first  and  second  reading  but  died  in  the 
committee  room.25  In  October,  Major  General  Percifer  F.  Smith, 
commander  of  the  United  States  forces  in  Texas,  urged  the  neces- 
sity of  immediate  action  in  regard  to  Texan  Indians  so  that  some 
definite  and  determined  policy  might  be  pursued.  Until  such 
action  was  taken  he  declared  he  could  not  even  tell  the  Indians 
what  was  expected  of  them.26  In  his  annual  message,  President 
Fillmore  expressed  the  hope  that  Congress  might  induce  Texas 
to  set  aside  land  for  the  Indians,  otherwise  the  fulfillment  of  the 
treaty  with  Mexico  and  the  duty  of  his  government  to  the  Indi- 
ans would  become  a  serious  embarrassment.27  Yet,  in  spite  of 
these  efforts,  arrangements  for  Indian  reservations  in  Texas  were 
not  made  until  July,  1854.  At  this  date,  the  permission  of  Texas 
having  been  previously  granted,  appropriations  were  voted  for 
the  selection  and  survey  of  suitable  land  and  for  the  removal  of 
the  Indians  thereto.28  In  1855  two  colonies  were  established, 
one  at  the  Brazos  near  Fort  Belknap,  and  the  other  on  Clear 
Fork  about  forty-five  miles  from  its  confluence  with  the  mam 
river.29 

Meanwhile  Congress  had  slightly  loosened  the  purse  strings. 
On  February  27,  1851,  an  appropriation  was  made  for  four 
agents  for  New  Mexico  and  one  for  Utah.30  In  August  of  the 
following  year  $20,000  were  set  aside  for  general  Indian  service 
in  New  Mexico,  while  $100,000  were  appropriated  to  Indians  who 
had  been  deprived  of  lands  in  California.31  Finally  the  general 
appropriation  bill  which  made  provision  for  placing  the  Indians 

24  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  I,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  44. 

25  Globe,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  389. 

26  House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  part  II.,  32d  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  15. 

27  Globe,  32d  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  10. 

28 10  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  331;  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas  (Austin,  1898)  V. 
51-52. 

89  Bancroft,  History  of  the  North  Mexican  States  and  Texas,  II.,  p.  406-487. 
30  9  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  587. 
81  10  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  55-56. 


370  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

of  Texas  upon  reservations,  provided  also  for  the  segregation  of 
the  California  Indians  and  set  aside  $65,000  for  dealing  with  those 
of  New  Mexico. 

Congress  likewise  moved  slowly  in  regard  to  meeting  the  needs 
of  the  military  establishment  of  the  country.  Although  that  body 
increased  by  degrees  the  appropriations  for,  and  the  peace  status 
of,  the  army,  the  increase  was  never  commensurate  with  that 
requested  by  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  War.  Such  an 
attitude  may  be  explained  largely  by  the  agitated  state  of  poli- 
tics and  a  desire  to  economize.  Debates  upon  bills  for  appro- 
priations or  increase  of  the  army  tended  often  to  become  discus- 
sions on  the  responsibility  for  the  Mexican  war,  on  slavery,  or  on 
other  questions  of  party  politics,  and  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee was  inclined  constantly  to  trim  the  estimates  submitted 
by  the  War  Department  and  supported  by  the  Committee  on 
Military  Affairs. 

The  expense  of  maintaining  the  army  during  the  period  under 
consideration  was  considerably  in  excess  of  that  for  any  peaceful 
period  of  equal  length  in  the  history  of  the  nation  up  to  that 
tune,  and  the  desire  for  its  reduction  was  not  circumscribed  by 
party  lines.  Indeed,  exasperated  Whigs  considered  the  new  ter- 
ritory a  white  elephant  on  the  government's  hands  and  were 
not  unwilling  to  return  it  to  Mexico  and  even  to  give  that  coun- 
try a  few  millions  to  take  it  back.32  The  perplexing  question 
was  how  to  reduce  the  military  expenses  and  at  the  same  tune 
not  only  protect  the  inhabitants  of  the  new  territory  but  restrain 
the  Indians  from  incursions  into  Mexico. 

Congress  was  late  in  making  appropriations  for  the  year  end- 
ing June  30,  1849.  In  his  message,  communicated  to  the  House 
on  August  2,  the  President  stated  that  he  thought  an  increase  of 
the  army  in  excess  of  the  provision  of  the  act  of  May  13,  1846, 
unnecessary.  That  act  provided  that  each  company  should  be 
composed  of  sixty-four  enlisted  men  and  authorized  the  chief 
executive  at  his  discretion  to  raise  the  number  to  one  hundred. 
The  appropriation  bill  which  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee 

32  Globe,  30th  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  1032-1034,  1063. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED   STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  371 

reported  on  the  same  day,  however,  contained  a  section  repealing 
the  act  of  1846,  thus  placing  the  army  on  the  peace  status  of 
1842,  which  would  mean  only  forty-two  men  per  company.  The 
proposition  received  warm  discussion.  It  was  opposed  on  the 
ground  that  forty-two  men  per  company  would  furnish  only  a  little 
more  than  six  thousand  troops  available  for  service,  while  the 
Secretary  of  War  declared  that  he  needed  five  thousand  men  for 
New  Mexico  and  California  alone.  Robert  McLane  of  Mary- 
land proposed  to  meet  the  difficulty  by  authorizing  a  mounted 
regiment  for  the  western  frontier.  Toombs  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  took  a  decided  stand  against  a  regular  army, 
declaring  that  when  the  doors  of  the  temple  of  Janus  were  shut 
the  epaulets  should  be  stripped  from  the  army,  and  the  soldiers 
and  officers  returned  to  their  employment.  Gentry  of  Tennessee 
and  Barringer  of  North  Carolina  used  our  treaty  obligations  to 
Mexico  as  an  argument  in  favor  of  increasing  the  military  force. 
The  bill  as  finally  passed  and  approved  (August  14,  1848)  left 
the  army  with  the  peace  standing  of  1842,  but  gave  the 
President  power  to  increase  five  regiments,  by  transfers  from 
other  regiments,  to  such  a  number  as  he  deemed  wise,  "not 
exceeding  one  hundred  privates".33 

During  the  second  session  of  the  Thirtieth  Congress  there  was 
manifested  the  same  desire  to  decrease  the  military  expenses  of 
the  country.  When  the  general  army  appropriation  bill  came  up 
for  consideration,  Mr.  Greely  of  New  York  objected  strenuously 
to  the  amount  set  aside  for  recruiting  and  to  the  quantity  of  ex- 
penditures on  the  army  and  navy  in  general,  contrasting  them 
with  the  former  expenditures  of  the  nation.  He  lauded  England's 
policy  of  pacifying  the  Indians  of  Canada,  and  declared  that  if 
the  government  of  the  United  States  were  to  spend  more  money 
in  order  to  maintain  peace  among  the  Indians,  the  standing  army 
could  be  reduced,  and  the  frontiers  could  be  defended  by  a  volun- 
teer army.  In  the  discussion  of  the  bill  the  slavery  issue  was 
often  interposed.34 

33  Globe,  30th  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  1024-1036, 1063, 1072;  9  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large, 
p.  306.    This  bill,  as  indeed  most  of  the  army  appropriation  bills  of  this  period, 
received  little  discussion  in  the  Senate. 

34  Globe,  30th  cong.,  2d  sess.,  pp.  123,  350-351,  366-367,  371. 


372  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

The  Thirty-first  Congress  passed  not  only  the  largest  single 
army  appropriation  bill  of  the  period  in  question  but  also  another 
measure  of  considerable  importance  to  the  frontier.  Yet  there 
was  manifested  vigorous  opposition  to  increase  of  expenditures. 
A  bill  to  "  increase  the  rank  and  file  of  the  army  and  to  encourage 
enlistments"  was  introduced  in  the  House  on  February  26,  1850, 
where  it  received  its  warmest  discussion  on  May  23.  Its  sup- 
porters used  two  maui  arguments:  the  perilous  condition  of  the 
western  frontier;  and  treaty  obligations  to  Mexico  under  the 
eleventh  article  of  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  Its  oppo- 
nents either  maintained  that  the  present  army  was  sufficient  or 
favored  the  substitution  of  volunteers  for  regulars.  Representa- 
tive Harris  of  Illinois,  proposed  the  raising  of  1200  mounted 
rangers  for  a  year,  while  Representative  Howard  of  Texas  was 
in  favor  of  enlisting  two  regiments  of  rangers  to  be  continued  in 
service  so  long  as  the  public  defense  required.  The  inadequacy 
of  infantry  for  frontier  defense  was  clearly  set  forth,  but  when  the 
bill  was  under  consideration  hi  the  Senate,  Rusk  of  Texas  op- 
posed the  clause  authorizing  the  mounting  of  the  infantry.  He 
was  thoroughly  convinced  that  infantry  was  "  worse  than  use- 
less" on  the  frontier,  but  he  did  not  think  that  cavalry  could  be 
made  out  of  men  who  neither  knew  how  to  ride  nor  to  care  for 
their  horses.  He  was  in  favor  of  raising  more  cavalry  and  de- 
clared that  treaty  obligations  to  Mexico  were  being  "  violated 
every  day".  In  its  final  form,  the  bill  contained  three  provisions 
which  related  primarily  to  the  Indian  problem:  1.  The  Presi- 
dent was  authorized  to  increase  the  size  of  any  company  serving 
then  or  thereafter  on  the  western  frontier  or  at  distant  military 
posts  to  a  number  not  exceeding  seventy-four.  2.  He  was  given 
power  at  his  discretion  to  mount  companies  of  infantry.  3.  Re- 
cruits enlisted  hi  the  vicinity  of  the  frontier  posts  were  to  be  al- 
lowed a  bounty  equal  to  the  price  of  transportation  and  subsist- 
ence of  a  soldier  from  the  Harbor  of  New  York  to  the  place  of 
such  enlistment.35  The  appropriation  bill  gave  the  commis- 

**  Globe,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  1049-1051,  1059-1060,  1180-1181;  9  U.  S. 
Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  438-439. 


INDIANS  IN  UNITED   STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  373 

sioned  officers  of  Oregon  and  California  $2.00  per  day  extra  and 
enlisted  men  double  pay.36 

At  the  second  session  of  the  Thirty-first  Congress  an  even  more 
determined  effort  was  made  to  cut  down  the  soaring  estimates  of 
the  War  Department.  That  department  desired  nine  million  dol- 
lars, but  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  reduced  the  sum  to 
seven  and  one-half  millions.  Toombs  of  the  committee  declared 
that,  while  the  estimates  for  1840  allowed  $404  per  year  for  each 
man  in  the  service,  those  for  1851  required  $900.  He  said  the 
people  of  the  frontier  were  desirous  of  defending  themselves  and 
he  was  in  favor  of  allowing  them  to  do  it.  Mr.  Howard,  repre- 
sentative from  Texas,  revealed  the  fact  that  Mexico  had  again 
urged  the  subject  of  Indian  depredations  upon  the  United  States, 
and  censured  the  government  of  the  United  States  for  opposing 
the  calling  out  of  rangers.  Members  of  the  military  committee 
undertook  to  explain  the  high  estimates  of  the  War  Department. 
The  cost  of  forage  and  of  transportation  to  the  frontier  posts 
was  very  high.  Supplies  for  New  Mexico  had  to  be  carried  820 
miles  across  the  country  from  Fort  Leavenworth,  Missouri,  and 
transportation  to  Texas  was  expensive.  Rations  for  a  soldier  at 
the  Texan  posts  cost  nineteen  cents  per  day  while  those  of  a  sol- 
dier of  New  Mexico  cost  forty-two  cents.  The  Quartermaster's 
Department  alone  spent  four  million  dollars  during  the  year 
ending  June  30,  1851.  Yet  for  all  this  expense  the  frontier  was 
insecure  and  the  House  was  warned  that  Mexico  would  be 
demanding  indemnities.  Congress  failed  to  provide  additional 
cavaky,  however,  and  the  appropriation  was  left  at  slightly 
over  seven  and  one-half  millions,  only  to  be  supplemented  later  by 
a  deficiency  bill  of  more  than  two  millions.37 

Finally,  during  the  Thirty-second  Congress,  an  attempt  was 
made  to  obtain  an  appropriation  for  trying  out  camels  on  the 
western  desert,  and  distributing  arms  to  the  citizens  of  Utah, 
Oregon,  New  Mexico,  California,  and  Texas,  while  at  the  same 

38  Ibid.,  pp.  504-505. 

37  Globe,  31st  cong.,  2d  sess.,  pp.  523,  581,  702-706,  721-728;  House  Journal,  pp. 
288,  395,  450;  9  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  618-621;  10  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  pp. 
16-17. 


374  THE    HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

time  it  was  proposed  to  authorize  the  President  to  call  out  the 
militia  and  to  accept  the  service  of  volunteers.  The  provision 
for  testing  the  efficiency  of  camels  was  offered  as  an  amendment 
to  the  general  appropriation  bill.  The  other  proposition  was  pur- 
ported to  have  come  as  a  recommendation  from  the  President, 
the  Secretary  of  War,  and  Colonel  Sumner  of  New  Mexico.  During 
its  discussion  facts  were  brought  out  which  showed  that  New 
Mexico  and  the  frontiers  of  Texas  were  in  a  terrible  condition. 
The  measure  passed  the  House,  but,  when  returned  by  the  Senate, 
it  contained  amendments  to  which  the  House  objected  and,  con- 
sequently, failed  to  pass.38 

The  Work  of  the  Indian  Department. — While  Congress  was  pro- 
ceeding in  this  dilatory  fashion,  the  Indian  Department  was  work- 
ing with  what  means  it  could  obtain,  and  with  the  treaty  obliga- 
tions to  Mexico  in  mind.  On  April  7,  1849,  Calhoun  was  made 
Indian  agent  for  New  Mexico  and  instructed,  among  other  things, 
"to  determine  the  number  of  prisoners  held  by  the  Indians  in 
that  territory,  whether  they  were  Americans  or  Mexicans  and, 
if  Mexicans,  whether  they  were  taken  prior  to  the  termination  of 
the  war  and  treaty  with  Mexico,  or  subsequently".39  Calhoun 
arrived  at  his  post  on  July  22;  and  for  the  next  three  years,  first 
as  agent,  and  then  as  Governor  and  Superintendent  of  Indian 
affairs,  he  labored  arduously  and  conscientiously,  but  was  always 
greatly  handicapped  for  lack  of  means  and  equipment.  In  the 
spring  of  1849,  J.  C.  Hays  had  been  sent  to  the  Gila  Apaches,  but 
in  January  of  the  following  year  he  had  resigned  his  post  declar- 
ing his  "  inability  to  be  of  any  service  whatever  with  the  means 
furnished".40  Early  in  1850,  Calhoun  took  the  liberty  of  sending 
Cyrus  Choice  as  agent  among  the  Utahs,  with  the  hope  of  ob- 
taining means  for  paying  him  by  a  later  appropriation.41  Other 
than  these  he  seems  to  have  had  no  assistance  until  the  four 
agents  appointed  by  the  law  of  February  27,  1851,  arrived. 

88  Globe,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  1442*-1444*,  1457-1459,  1594,  1789-1791, 1870, 
1883,  1909-1915. 

89  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  to  Calhoun,  April  7,  1849,  in  Abel,  Official 
Corespondence  of  James  S.  Calhoun,  pp.  3-5. 

40  Ibid.,  p.  34,  note. 

41  Ibid.,  pp.  122,  142-143,  187. 


INDIANS  IN  UNITED   STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  375 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  this  paper  to  follow  the  de- 
tails of  the  labors  of  these  Indian  agents.  We  are  concerned  here 
primarily  with  their  attempts  to  carry  out  the  pro  visions  of  Article 
XI.  An  examination  of  their  work  will  reveal  considerable  ef- 
fort to  meet  this  responsibility.  During  the  period  of  their  serv- 
ice prior  to  December  30,  1853,  when  negotiations  for  the  Gads- 
den  Treaty  were  completed,  four  important  Indian  treaties  were 
made,  three  of  which  were  ratified  by  Congress.  Each  contained 
the  stipulation  that  the  Indians  should  deliver  up  Mexican  pris- 
oners. The  treaty  with  the  Gila  Apaches  (July  1,  1852)  went  a 
step  further  and  pledged  the  Indians  in  the  future  to  desist  from 
making  incursions  of  a  hostile  or  predatory  character  into  the 
territory  of  Mexico  and  to  refrain  from  taking  captives  there- 
from.42 

Moreover,  on  at  least  three  occasions  Calhoun  reported  that 
prisoners  taken  from  the  Indians  of  New  Mexico  had  been 
handed  over  to  the  Mexican  authorities.  On  June  27,  1850, 
thirteen  Mexican  captives  were  given  to  Jose  N.  Prieto  at  El 
Paso.43  On  August  5,  1851,  five  more  were  delivered  at  the  same 
place  and,  later  in  the  month,  Calhoun  reported  that  three  others 
were  being  held  awaiting  the  disposal  of  the  Mexican  govern- 
ment.44 As  it  was  wellknown  that  the  Gila  Apaches  had  numer- 
ous Mexican  prisoners45  it  is  not  unlikely  that  after  the  treaty  of 
July,  1852,  these  also  were  sent  to  their  homes.  This  much  at 
least  was  accomplished  by  the  Indian  agents  of  New  Mexico — a 
not  inconsiderable  task  when  the  difficulties  under  which  they 
labored  are  borne  in  mind. 

The  efforts  of  the  Indian  agents  in  Texas  were  perhaps  not  so 
fruitful  in  tangible  results.  This  was  likely  due  to  the  want  of 
close  cooperation  owing  to  the  fact  that  there  was  no  superin- 
tendent of  Indian  affairs  in  Texas,  as  well  as  to  the  great  difficul- 
ties arising  from  the  lack  of  a  definite  policy.  The  time  of  the 

42  Kappler,  Laws  and  Treaties  (Washington,  1904),  II.  585-586,  598-600;  Abel 
Official  Correspondence  of  James  S.  Calhoun,  p.  314-316. 

48  Abel,  Official  Correspondence  of  James  S.  Calhoun,  p.  227. 
44  Ibid.,  pp.  390,  401. 
« Ibid.,  p.  401. 


376  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

agents  was  chiefly  occupied  in  distributing  rations  from  the  vari- 
ous posts  on  the  frontier  and  in  pacifying  the  Indians  in  regard  to 
their  lands.46  By  the  treaty  of  1846,  the  leading  tribes  of  Texas 
agreed  to  surrender  "all  white  persons  and  negroes"  whom  they 
captured.47  Lieutenant  Colonel  Hardee  reported  in  August, 
1851,  that  the  Comanches  and  Lipans  had  handed  over  seventeen 
Mexican  captives  to  Judge  Robbins  [Rollins],  one  of  the  special 
Indian  agents  of  Texas,  and  that  they  had  been  restored  to  their 
families.  Hardee  stated  that  these  were  the  "only  Mexican  pris- 
oners delivered  up  by  the  Indians  since  the  establishment  of 
the  eighth  military  department".48  No  further  instance  of  the 
return  of  prisoners  by  the  Texan  agents  has  been  found. 

Finally,  on  July  27,  1853,  Special  Agent  Thomas  Fitzpatrick 
negotiated  at  Fort  Atkinson  a  treaty  with  the  Comanches,  Kio- 
was,  and  Apaches,  the  fifth  article  of  which  bound  these  tribes  to 
refrain  in  the  future  from  warlike  incursions  into  the  Mexican 
provinces  and,  not  only  to  restore  all  captives  who  might  be  taken 
by  "any  bands,  war-parties  or  individuals  of  said  several  tribes", 
but  to  make  restitution  for  all  wrongs  inflicted  upon  Mexicans.49 

In  general,  however,  these  treaties  were  not  adhered  to  with 
any  degree  of  faithfulness,  and  to  the  conciliatory  negotiations  of 
the  agents  it  was  necessary  to  add  the  chastisements  of  the 
army. 

Number  and  Location  of  the  United  States  Troops  on  the  Mexican 
Border. — In  the  distribution  of  the  troops  on  the  southwestern 
frontier  fulfillment  of  treaty  obligations  to  Mexico  seems  to  have 
been  kept  in  mind.  The  Secretary  of  War  in  informing  General 
Brooke  of  his  appointment  as  Commander  of  the  Eighth  Military 
Department  urged  him  to  make  earnest  efforts  to  reclaim  and 
restore  all  captives  who  had  been  taken  and  carried  away  by  the 
Indians.  "This  duty",  he  continued,  "has  been  assumed  in  be- 
half of  the  Mexican  people  by  a  treaty  with  Mexico,  which  is  con- 

48  House  Ex.  Doc.  5,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  963-965.  House  Ex.  Doc.  2,  32d 
cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  515-526;  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  1,  32d  cong.,  2d  sess.,  pp.  431-436. 

47  Kappler,  Laws  and  Treaties,  II.  554. 

48  Hardee  to  Deas,  August  29,  1851,  House  Ex.  Doc.  2,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp. 
121-122. 

49  Kappler,  Laws  and  Treaties,  II.  600-602. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED    STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  377 

sidered  as  superadding  only  a  specified  obligation  to  the  general 
claim  which  humanity  imposes  on  all  civilized  nations".50  On 
February  3,  1849,  Washington,  of  New  Mexico,  wrote  Adjutant- 
General  Jones  that  he  had  neglected  nothing  to  effect  a  speedy 
release  of  prisoners  hi  accordance  with  the  treaty  of  1848.  Many 
had  been  restored  to  their  homes  in  New  Mexico,  and  others  were 
awaiting  instructions  from  the  Mexican  republic.51  In  his  an- 
nual report  for  1849,  the  Secretary  of  War  stated  that  military 
operations  in  Texas  and  New  Mexico  had  resulted  in  the  recovery 
of  numerous  captives,  several  of  whom  had  been  returned  to  their 
homes.52 

Again,  in  the  spring  of  1851,  when  new  commanders  were  sent 
to  Texas,  California,  and  New  Mexico,  respectively,  each  of  them 
was  given  specific  instructions  regarding  the  organization  of  his 
department.  In  establishing  military  posts  they  were  to  be 
governed  by  three  principles,  one  of  which  was  the  protection  of 
Mexico  from  the  raids  of  hostile  Indians.  The  letters  contained 
a  complete  statement  of  the  Secretary's  views  in  regard  to  the  mat- 
ter. He  ordered  those  officers  to  "bear  in  mind  that  the  Mexican 
territory  is  as  much  entitled  as  our  own  to  the  protection  of  our 
troops  against  Indian  tribes  within  our  limits".53 

The  great  need  of  the  frontier  was  efficient  soldiers.  The  Adju- 
tant-General's report  of  December  2,  1848,  showed  a  total  of  616 
troops,  rank  and  file,  at  the  New  Mexican  posts  while  322  more 
were  en  route.  According  to  the  same  report,  Texas  had  787 
rank  and  file  present,  with  575  en  route.  At  the  close  of  the  next 
year,  there  were  only  708  rank  and  file  present  in  New  Mexico, 
while  there  were  1,074  in  Texas.  These  troops  were  gradually 
increased  until,  in  1853,  there  were  1,407,  including  officers,  in 
New  Mexico,  and  2,649  in  Texas.  Adding  to  these  the  114  sta- 
tioned at  Fort  Yuma,  there  would  be  a  total  of  some  4,100,  rank 

60  Crawford  to  Brooke,  June  4,  1849,  House  Ex.  Doc.  5,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess. 
pp.  138-139. 

61  Ibid.,  p.  105. 

52  Ibid.,  p.  94. 

53  Secretary  of  War  to  Smith,  April  30,  1851,  House  Ex.  Doc.  2,  32d  cong.,  1st 
sess.,  p.  117;  Ibid,  to  Sumner,  April  1,  1851,  Ibid.,  p.  125;  Ibid,  to  Hitchcock,  May 
3,  1851,  Ibid.  p.  143. 


378  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

and  file,  stationed  within  reach  of  the  Mexican  frontier,  though 
they  were  by  no  means  all  sufficiently  close  for  immediate  serv- 
ice. The  only  portion  of  this  force  which  could  be  considered 
really  effective  against  Indians,  who  were  usually  well-mounted 
and  always  excellent  horsemen,  was  the  cavalry.  In  this  re- 
spect, however,  the  frontier  force  was  weakest.  During  this 
period,  from  the  mouth  of  the  Rio  Grande  to  El  Paso,  no  cavalry 
was  stationed  on  the  immediate  border.  Beginning  with  1849, 
dragoons  were  posted  some  distance  back  of  the  line,  about  forty 
or  fifty  having  been  stationed  in  that  year  along  with  the  infantry 
at  Fort  Inge  and  Fort  Martin  Scott.  They  remained  at  the 
latter  post  till  1851  and  at  the  former  till  1852.  Beginning  with 
1852,  more  than  two  hundred  mounted  riflemen  were  posted  at 
Forts  Inge,  Ewell,  and  Merrill — a  number  increased  to  325  in 
1853;  and  in  the  latter  year,  some  fifty  dragoons  were  stationed  at 
Fort  Terrett.  Above  El  Paso  at  Socorro,  some  thirty-five  or 
forty  dragoons  were  stationed  during  the  years  1848,  1849,  and 
1850,  and  probably  a  few  more  than  this  number  at  Dona  Ana 
during  the  latter  two  years.  Beginning  with  1851,  an  average  of 
about  eighty  dragoons  were  stationed  at  Fort  Fillmore,  and  al- 
most an  equal  number  were  at  Fort  Webster  in  1852  and  1853. 
Therefore,  not  more  than  180  mounted  men  were  within  immedi- 
ate reach  of  the  frontier  at  any  one  time  during  the  period  1848- 
1852,  and  never  more  than  six  hundred  at  any  time  during  the 
entire  period.54 

The  regulars  were  often  supplemented  by  volunteer  companies. 
Following  a  severe  raid  on  Corpus  Christi  in  the  late  summer  of 
1849,  three  companies  of  mounted  militia  were  called  into  serv- 
ice. In  March  of  the  following  year,  the  Governor  of  Texas 
was  called  upon  for  another  company.  These  four  were  retained 
in  service  until  fall.55  During  the  spring  and  summer  of  1851 

54  See  Reports  of  Adjutant-General,  1848-1853,  in  House  Ex.,  Doc.  1, 30th  cong. 
2nd  sess.,  p.  184;  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  1,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  188;  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  1 , 
part  II.,  31st  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  116;  House  Ex.  Doc.  2,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  200- 
206;  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  1,  32d  cong.,  2d  sess.,  pp.  58-60;  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  1,  33d  cong., 
1st  sess.,  pp.  118-121. 

66  House  Ex.  Doc.  5,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  148-150;  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  I,  part 
II. ,31st  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  31;  House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  part  II.,  32d  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  16. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED    STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  379 

volunteer  companies  under  McCullock,  Wallace,  Connor,  and 
Ford  were  kept  in  the  field.56  In  response  to  a  call  issued  by  Gov- 
ernor Washington  of  New  Mexico,  March  20,  1849,  four  com- 
panies, one  of  infantry  and  three  of  cavalry,  were  mustered  into 
service.57  Among  the  force  which  proceeded  against  the  Apaches 
from  Rayado,  in  July,  1850,  were  ninety  Mexican  volunteers,  citi- 
zens of  New  Mexico.58  Probably  there  were  other  instances 
when  militia  was  used,  but  there  was  always  the  expense  objec- 
tion, and  early  in  1852  considerable  suffering  resulted  in  New 
Mexico  because  the  poverty  of  the  territorial  government  would 
not  permit  the  purchase  of  arms  and  ammunition,  and  the  Gov- 
ernor neither  had  power  to  call  out  the  militia  nor  the  ability  to 
persuade  the  commander  of  the  ninth  department  (New  Mexico) 
to  furnish  army  supplies.59  The  President  had  authority  after 
1850  to  mount  the  infantry  when  occasion  demanded,  but  such 
improvised  cavalry  was  necessarily  inefficient. 

Failure  of  the  United  States  to  Protect  the  People  of  Texas  and 
New  Mexico. — Indeed,  the  military  forces,  assisted  by  the  Indian 
Department,  when  the  two  could  work  in  harmony,  were  ad- 
mittedly and  decidedly  unable  to  cope  with  the  Indian  situation. 
The  secretaries  of  War  and  Interior  constantly  complained  of  the 
inadequacy  of  the  resources  placed  in  their  hands,60  and  the  citi- 
zens of  Texas  and  New  Mexico  lamented  their  perilous  condition 
while  they  memorialized  the  government.  A  joint  resolution  of 
the  Texan  Legislature  (January  28,  1850),  in  urging  their  repre- 
sentatives to  lay  the  matter  before  Congress,  declared  that  "vast 
numbers"  of  citizens  had  been  captured  and  killed  and  property, 
"to  a  vast  amount",  had  been  stolen  and  carried  away  by  the 
Indians.61  A  petition,  dated  at  Santa  Fe,  February  27,  1850,  and 
signed  by  fifty-two  citizens,  asserted  that  although  some  of  the 

56  Globe,  32d  cong.,  2d  sess.,  pp.  1909-1915. 

87  House  Ex.  Doc.  5,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  107-110. 

68  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  I,  part  II.,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  74. 

69  Abel,  Official  Correspondence  of  James  S.  Calhoun,  pp.  366,  473,  480,  507. 

60  See  Reports  of  1850,  1851,  in  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  1,  31st  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  19; 
Ibid.,  part  II,  p.  3;  House  Ex.  Doc.  2,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  105;  Ibid.,  part  II., 
D.  489. 

*l  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  III.  85. 


380  THE    HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

petitioners  had  lived  in  Mew  Mexico  from  five  to  fifty  years, 
they  had  never  known  Indian  troubles  to  be  as  terrible  and  alarm- 
ing.62 Petitions  of  a  similar  nature  were  presented  in  the  summer 
of  the  following  year.63  General  Brooke  of  Texas  said  in  1851, 
that  he  needed  three  thousand  cavalry  for  his  department,  while 
McCall  of  New  Mexico  asked  for  fourteen  hundred.64  So  far  as 
the  Texans  and  New  Mexicans  were  concerned,  the  Indians  were 
reported  quiet  in  1852,65  but  during  this  very  time  their  raids  upon 
Mexico  were  particularly  destructive.66 

The  Indian  Policy  of  Mexico. — Officials  of  the  United  States 
were  inclined  at  times  to  accuse  the  government  of  Mexico  of 
failing  to  cooperate  with  them  in  the  pursuit  of  Indians,  while 
making  attempt  to  defend  itself  from  their  incursions.67  The  facts, 
however,  will  hardly  bear  out  the  correctness  of  this  view.  Indeed, 
Mexico  made  a  special  effort  during  this  period  to  provide  for  the 
protection  of  the  northern  frontier,  and  failure  was  due  to  lack 
of  means,  internal  disturbances,  and  filibuster  raids,  rather  than 
to  indifference. 

By  special  law  of  December  4,  1846,  designed  to  direct  coloni- 
zation, a  provision  had  been  made  for  establishing  "  military  col- 
onies, composed  of  Mexicans  or  foreigners,  or  of  one  or  both, 
along  the  coasts  and  frontiers  as  the  government  shall  designate, 
especially  in  order  to  restrain  the  irruptions  of  the  savages".68 
A  decree  dated  June  19,  1848,  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  frontier  line  as  marked  by  the  late  treaty  with  the  United 
States  demanded  urgent  attention  in  order  to  conserve  the  integ- 

62  Abel,  Official  Correspondence  of  James  S.  Calhoun,  p.  157. 

63  Ibid.,  pp.  366-386. 

64  Globe,  31st  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  722. 

65  Abel,  Official  Correspondence  of  James  S.  Calhoun,  pp.  529,  540;  Report  of 
the  Secretary  of  War,  jn  House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  32d  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  3. 

66  Mexican  Border  Commission,  Report,  1873,  pp.  292,  332;  John  Bartlett,  Per- 
sonal Narrative  of  Explorations  and  Incidents  in  Texas,  New  Mexico,  California, 
Sonora  and  Chihuahua  (New  York,  1854),  II.  385;  El  Universal,  August  18,  and 
November  17,  1852;  Pinart  Transcripts,  Sonora,  V.  1-135. 

67  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  House  Ex.  Doc.  2,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p. 
106;  "Fillmore's  Annual  Message",  House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  18- 
19;  Globe,  33d  cong.,  1  sess.,  pp.  1534-1548. 

68  Francisco  F.  de   la  Maza,  Cddigo  de  colonizacidn  y  terrenos  baldlos  de  la 
Repiiblica  M exicdna  (Mexico,  1893),  p.  356. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED   STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  381 

rity  of  the  nation's  territory  and  "to  defend  the  frontier  states 
from  the  frequent  and  cruel  incursions  of  savages",  and  proceeded 
to  provide  for  the  establishment  of  military  colonies.  The  north- 
ern frontier  was  marked  out  into  three  divisions,  designated  as 
the  Frontier  of  the  East,  the  Frontier  of  Chihuahua,  and  the 
Frontier  of  the  West,  and  eighteen  colonies  were  distributed 
among  them.  Seven  were  allotted  to  the  East,  which  included 
Tamaulipas  and  Coahuila,  five  to  Chihuahua,  another  five  to 
Sonora,  and  one  to  Lower  California.  The  land  around  each 
colony,  after  being  divided  into  lots  and  improved  at  government 
expense,  was  to  be  assigned  to  the  soldiers  for  cultivation.  Vol- 
untary enlistment  for  a  term  of  six  years  was  provided,  at  the  end 
of  which  time  each  soldier  was  to  receive  a  bounty  of  ten  pesos 
and  the  allotment  of  land  which  he  had  been  cultivating.  Dur- 
ing his  term  of  service  he  was  to  share  the  fruits  of  the  soil. 
Provision  was  made  for  civilian  settlers  around  each  colony  which 
upon  attaining  a  certain  population,  was  to  receive  a  civil  gov- 
ernment. In  the  eighteen  colonies,  troops  to  the  number  of  2,426 
were  to  be  stationed,  consisting  of  1,715  cavalry  and  the  rest  in- 
fantry, and  each  cavalryman  was  to  be  equipped  with  two 
horses.69  This  last  provision  is  of  especial  interest  when  the 
proportion  of  cavalry  which  the  United  States  provided  for 
the  frontier  is  considered. 

In  the  course  of  the  next  three  years  these  colonies  were  laid 
out  either  at  the  points  designated  or  provisionally  in  places  as 
near  as  the  Indian  situation  would  permit.  The  report  of  the 
Minister  of  War  and  Marine  for  1850  states  that  in  Chihuahua 
the  colonies  of  Del  Norte  and  El  Paso  del  Norte  were  established 
hi  May  and  June,  1849,  while  those  of  San  Carlos  and  Pilares 
were  planted  in  May  and  July  of  the  following  year.  Janos 
had  not  been  established  in  the  place  determined,  but  prepara- 
tions for  it  were  being  made.  On  the  frontier  of  the  East,  the 
colonies  of  Rio  Grande,  Guerrero,  Monclova-Viejo,  and  Monterey 
had  been  set  up,  but  Camargo  was  yet  unfounded,  and  the  colony 
of  San  Vicente  had  been  left  provisionally  at  Santa  Rosa.  None 
of  the  colonies  of  the  West  had  been  established  in  their  ultimate 

6»  Ibid.,  pp.  400-406,  Doc.  2. 


382  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

destinations,  although  225  soldiers  and  200  civilians  were  sta- 
tioned at  the  ancient  presidio  of  Fronteras  and  other  soldiers 
intended  for  the  colonies  were  campaigning  against  the  Indians. 
During  the  following  year,  however,  all  the  colonies  were  set  up 
either  permanently  or  provisionally.70 

At  the  close  of  1850,  there  had  been  recruited  for  the  Colonies 
of  the  East  434  soldiers  and  972  horses,  for  those  of  Chihuahua, 
296  soldiers  and  220  horses,  for  those  of  the  West,  240  soldiers 
and  306  horses.  By  the  end  of  the  next  year  the  force  had  in- 
creased to  502,  334,  and  445  respectively,  but  there  had  been  a 
falling  off  of  almost  200  in  the  number  of  horses,  while  the  report 
of  December,  1851,  showed  a  decrease  in  both  stock  and  men, 
there  being  in  all  the  colonies  at  that  time  1,093  soldiers  and  689 
horses  and  mules.71 

By  treaties  of  October,  1850,  and  July,  1852,  peaceful  Semi- 
noles  and  Muskogees  had  been  permitted  to  settle  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  colonies  of  the  East  and  of  Chihuahua.72  In  1851,  reduced 

70  The  situation  of  the  military  colonies  in  1851  is  given  as  follows: 

1.  Camargo,  in  the  town  of  that  name. 

2.  El  Pan,  at  Lampazos. 

3.  Monterey,  at  Paso  de  Piedra. 

4.  Rio  Grande,  at  Mision  Nueva. 

5.  Guerrero,  at  Piedras  Negras. 

6.  Monclova-Viejo,  at  Moral. 

7.  San  Vicente,  in  the  old  presidio  of  Agua  Verde. 

8.  San  Carlos,  in  the  old  presidio  of  that  name. 

9.  Del  Norte,  at  Presidio  del  Norte. 

10.  Pilares,  in  Vado  de  Piedra. 

11.  Paso,  about  fourteen  leagues  down  the  Rio  Grande  from  El  Paso. 

12.  Janos,  near  the  village  of  Janos. 

13-17.  The  five  colonies  of  Sonora,  at  the  presidios  of  Bavispe,  Fronteras, 
Santa  Cruz,  Tucson,  and  Altar. 

18.  Rosario,  at  Mision  Santo  Tomas  in  Lower  California. 
See  Manero,  Documentos  Sobre  colonizacidn,  pp.  28-36. 

71  Ministerio  de  Guerra  y  Marina,  Memoria,  January,  1850,  Doc.  4;  January, 
1851,  Doc.  1;  December,  1851. 

72  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  p.  304;  Ministerio  de  Guerra  y 
Marina,  Memoria,  December  31,  1851,  in  Vicente  L.  Manero,  Documentos  sobre 
colonizacidn  (Mexico,  1878),  p.  30.    A.  M.  Jauregui,  Inspector  of  the  Colonies  of 
the  East,  had  written  in  regard  to  the  matter  in  July,  1850,  and  a  decree  of 
November  18,  1850,  had  stated  the  conditions  under  which  they  were  to  be 
received.     Maza,  Codigo  de  colonizacidn,  pp.  474-475. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED    STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  383 

Sierra  Gorda  Indians  were  sent  to  augment  the  frontier  forces. 
In  March,  1853,  General  Blanco,  the  new  inspector,  arrived  in 
Sonora  with  resources  sufficient  to  place  1,500  men  under  arms, 
and  during  the  same  year,  a  French  colony,  accepting  privileges 
extended  in  accordance  with  article  45  of  the  decree  of  1846, 
settled  at  Coc6spera.73 

Besides  these  military  colonies  a  considerable  number  of  regu- 
lars was  stationed  in  the  frontier  states;  and  in  1849,  following 
out  the  recommendation  of  a  junta  of  the  Federal  Congress 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  considering  means  of  frontier  protec- 
tion, an  appropriation  was  made  for  raising  4,000  national  guards.74 
Moreover,  the  towns  of  the  afflicted  sections  formed  leagues  for 
common  defense;  private  individuals  contributed  to  war  and  ran- 
som funds;  Durango,  Chihuahua,  and  Sonora  offered  bounties  for 
scalps  and  prisoners,  and,  finally,  the  frontier  States  of  Nuevo 
Le6n,  Chihuahua,  Coahuila,  Zacatecas,  Tamaulipas,  and  San 
Luis  Potosi  began  (1851)  plans  for  union  to  resist  the  common 
peril.75 

These  measures  were  rendered  ineffective,  however,  by  inter- 
nal disturbances  and  the  chaotic  state  of  the  national  funds,  by 
the  poverty  of  the  frontier  states,  by  epidemics  of  cholera  and 
fever,  by  the  quest  for  gold  which  drew  a  large  number  of  Sono- 
rans  annually  to  California  and,  lastly,  by  the  filibusters  who,  be- 
ginning their  raids  in  1851,  kept  the  whole  northern  border  in 
almost  constant  agitation.76  Taking  such  difficulties  as  these 
into  consideration,  one  will  hardly  be  surprised  to  learn  that  the 

73  Pinart  Transcripts,  Sonora,  V.  2,  8,  11.    By  decree  of  May  20,  1853,  Santa 
Anna  seems  to  have  incorporated  the  military  colonies  with  the  milicia  activa. 
Manuel  Dublan  and  Jose"  Maria  Lozano,  Legislacidn  Mexicana  (Mexico  1876 — ,) 
VI.  407,  412. 

74  Legislacidn  Mexicana,  pp.  551-552. 

75  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  pp.  273,  298,  340;  Pinart' s 
Transcripts,  Sonora,  IV.  188,  215-216;  Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  V.  579-580. 

76  Mexico,  Documentos  relatives  a  la  reunion  en  esta  capital  de  los  goberna- 
dores  de  los  Estados  convocados  para  proveer  a  las  exigencias  del  erario  federal 
(Mexico,  1851),  pp.  2-52;  Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  V.  603-605,  685-686;  Pinart 
Transcripts,  Sonora,  IV.  86-87,  264,  273,  283;  Ministerio  de  Guerra  y  Marina, 
Memoria,  1850,  pp.  14-15;  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  97,  32d  cong.  1st  sess.,  pp.  89,  113. 


384  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

number  of  troops  of  all  classes  on  the  northern  frontier  was  only 
2,136  at  the  close  of  1849,  and  3,189  in  January  1851." 

Only  so  much  of  the  operations  of  the  Mexican  troops  against 
the  Indians  as  is  necessary  to  convey  a  correct  general  idea  of  the 
attempts  of  that  country  to  defend  itself  will  be  given.  Tables 
compiled  by  the  Mexican  Commission  sent  to  the  border  in  1873 
show  that  the  forces  in  Nuevo  Le6n  had  thirty-three  encounters 
with  the  Indians  from  1848  to  1853  inclusive,  while  those  of 
Coahuila  had  more  than  forty.  Files  of  El  Sonoriense  mention 
some  thirty  or  forty  in  Sonora  from  1848  to  the  beginning  of  the 
filibuster  raids  in  September,  1851.  Data  as  to  the  exact  num- 
ber of  campaigns  and  skirmishes  in  the  other  states  have  not 
been  ascertained,  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  they  were  proportion- 
ately numerous.78  Indeed  the  federal  government  had  adopted 
the  policy  of  war  to  the  death  and  favored  an  arrangement 
whereby  the  boundary  of  the  United  States  could  be  crossed  in 
pursuit  of  the  depredating  bands.79 

Indian  Raids  upon  Mexico,  1848-1853. — An  attempt  to  ascer- 
tain the  effectiveness  of  these  encounters  would  be  uninteresting 
and  perhaps  meager  in  results.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to 
go  into  this  matter,  for  our  purpose  is  only  to  determine  whether 
Mexico  in  good  faith  endeavored  to  defend  itself.  The  best  proof 
of  the  failure  of  both  the  United  States  and  Mexico  in  dealing 
with  the  Indian  situation  is  found  in  the  losses  sustained  by  the 
latter  during  the  five  years  under  consideration.  Indian  incur- 
sions from  1848  to  1853  were  destructive  and  frequent  as  far 
down  the  Mexican  border  as  Reynoso  in  Tamaulipas.  They  in- 
creased in  severity  further  north  and  west,  assuming  enormous 
proportions  in  Sonora;  and  they  not  infrequently  extended  to 
Durango,  Zacatecas,  and  San  Luis  Potosi.80  The  commission  of 

77  Ministerio  de  Guerra  y  Marina,  Memoria,  January  24,  1850,  Doc.  4;  Ibid., 
January  3,  1851,  Doc.  1. 

78  See  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  pp.  253-281;  files  of  El 
Universal,  1850-1853,  Informe  de  la   Comisidn   Pesquisidora  de   la   Frontera  del 
Norte  (Mexico.  1874),  Ape"ndice  I-XLI;  Pinart  Transcripts,  Sonora,  vols.  IV-V. 

79  Ministerio  de  Guerra  y  Marina,  Memoria,  14. 

80  For  Durango,  see  files  of  El  Universal,  1849-1853.    For  Zacatecas  and  San 
Luis  Potosf,  see  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  pp.  337-340. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED   STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  385 

1873  gave  fairly  complete  reports  for  Nuevo  Le6n  and  Coahuila 
and  a  general  discussion  of  Tamaulipas,  San  Luis  Potosi,  and  Zaca- 
tecas,  respectively,  during  the  five  years  subsequent  to  the  treaty 
of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  As  a  basis  for  their  statements  they  re- 
lied upon  the  testimony  of  witnesses  and  data  found  in  the  vari- 
ous archives  of  the  region. 

Discussion  of  Tamaulipas  was  confined  chiefly  to  its  five  lead- 
ing frontier  towns.  The  first  invasion  of  Reynoso  took  place  in 
April,  1849,  when  a  cattle  station  was  assaulted,  two  persons 
killed,  and  four  made  prisoners.  Three  more  incursions  occurred 
during  the  course  of  the  year  and  a  number  of  cattle  were  stolen 
and  driven  across  the  river.  There  seems  to  have  been  no  other 
invasion  of  this  town  until  1856.  In  Camargo,  two  raids  were 
mentioned  in  1849,  three  in  1851,  and  one  in  1853,  though  the 
extent  of  the  damages  was  not  stated.  The  archives  of  Mier 
were  incomplete,  but  from  them  it  was  ascertained  that  there 
were  four  invasions  in  1848  which  resulted  in  the  murder  of  five 
persons  and  the  capture  of  six,  together  with  the  theft  of  all  the 
horses  that  the  Indians  could  find.  For  each  of  the  next  four 
years  the  Commission  did  not  give  the  specific  number  of  inva- 
sions. It  mentions,  however,  " daily  outrages"  in  which  a  "large 
number"  of  lives  were  lost  and  "  numerous"  captives  taken. 
Likewise,  the  Commission  failed  to  give  a  complete  statement  of 
the  victims  resulting  from  the  Indian  raids  upon  Guerrero,  but 
it  declared  that  the  magnitude  of  the  losses  was  astonishing  and 
that  there  was  not  a  single  year  in  which  murders  did  not  occur. 
The  President  of  the  City  Council  was  quoted  as  saying  in  a  let- 
ter of  November  23,  1850,  that  within  six  days  there  had  been 
"three  killed  and  two  dangerously  wounded,  in  addition  to  the 
horses  and  mules  carried  off  by  the  wretches",  and  again,  in  1851, 
as  informing  the  government  that  from  January  to  the  end  of 
July,  the  Indians  had  "killed  more  than  twenty  townspeople". 
Finally,  only  a  general  statement  is  given  concerning  Nuevo 
Laredo,  while  an  idea  of  the  perilous  condition  of  that  town  is 
conveyed  by  the  assertion  that  it  had  been  "surrounded  daily 
and  nightly  by  the  Indians"  and  "all  the  horses  there  were  in 
the  neighborhood"  had  been  stolen.81 

81  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  pp.  225-281. 


386  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

With  regard  to  the  depredations  on  Nuevo  Le6n  a  more  com- 
plete statement  is  given.  Comanche  incursions  upon  this  state  in 
1848  resulted  in  the  death  of  eleven  persons,  while  three  were 
wounded  and  two  captured  and  droves  of  horses  and  mules  were 
carried  off.  The  next  year  the  same  tribe  made  thirty-four  inva- 
sions, ''killing  thirty-four  persons,  wounding  fourteen  and  cap- 
turing four,  while  the  usual  number  of  horses  was  seized.  In 
1850,  there  were  eighty-six  incursions  upon  sixteen  towns  of  the 
state  with  a  toll  of  twenty-one  deaths,  twenty  wounded,  and  four 
captives,  besides  the  theft  of  more  than  a  thousand  animals. 
Notwithstanding  vigorous  efforts  on  the  part  of  Nuevo  Le6n  to 
meet  the  situation,  the  losses  for  the  next  year  were  "thirty-six 
killed,  thirty-three  wounded,  and  twelve  captives,  besides  about 
three  hundred  horses",  while  in  1852  they  were  more  numerous 
than  ever.  The  casualties  during  this  year  amounted  to  sixty- 
two  killed,  thirty  wounded,  and  sixteen  captives.  Finally,  there 
were  seventy-seven  incursions  in  1853,  causing  a  loss  of  thirty- 
five  killed,  twenty-three  wounded,  and  six  captives,  together  with 
numerous  horses  and  mules.82 

Coahuila  seems  to  have  been  damaged  comparatively  little  by 
the  Indian  raids  which  occurred  in  1848,  but  during  the  four  sub- 
sequent years,  that  state  suffered  more  than  Nuevo  Le6nor 
Tamaulipas.  From  1849  to  1853  inclusive,  depredations  which 
were  committed  both  by  the  Comanches  and  the  Apaches  re- 
sulted in  one  hundred  and  ninety-one  deaths,  while  one  hundred 
and  twenty-one  were  wounded  and  sixty-three  captured,  and 
considerable  property  destroyed  and  stolen.  Indeed  the  Indians 
raided  all  parts  of  the  state  holding  the  people  in  almost  constant 
peril  of  their  lives.83 

For  the  outrages  committed  in  Chihuahua,  files  of  El  Universal, 
a  paper  printed  in  Mexico  City,  have  been  consulted.  Although 
that  organ  made  no  attempt  at  a  statistical  summary  of  the 
losses  or  a  complete  statement  of  the  raids,  enough  is  given  to 

82  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  pp.  288-319. 

83  Ibid.,  pp.  319-337.    Tables  in  the  appendix  of  the  report  in  Spanish  differ 
from  these  estimates  in  slight  details.    See  Informs  de  la  Comisidn  Pesquisidora, 
ApSndice,  II-XII,  XXVII-XXXVII. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED    STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  387 

reveal  something  of  the  perils  suffered.84  Under  date  of  June  2, 
1849,  it  was  stated  that  a  more  bloody  war  than  ever  was  being 
waged  by  the  Indians  of  the  northern  frontier  and  that  among  the 
Chihuahuenses  the  main  question  was  not  one  of  politics  or  ad- 
ministration but  of  "living  or  perishing  ingloriously  at  the  hands 
of  the  barbarians".  In  an  editorial  of  August  30,  the  same  paper 
after  picturing  in  vivid  manner  the  infinite  misfortunes  suffered 
from  Indian  depredations,  mentions  Chihuahua  as  one  of  the 
states  " suffering  constantly".  Jose  Cordero  (presumably  a  citi- 
zen of  the  state)  in  a  pamphlet,  published  March  23,  1850,  and 
urging  the  State  Congress  to  adopt  a  plan  of  action  against  the 
Indians  declared  that  the  Apaches  had  killed  hundreds  of  victims 
in  the  state  and  destroyed  the  fortunes  of  its  inhabitants  and 
were  at  that  time  planning  greater  destruction.85  On  April  3, 
1851,  a  Chihuahuan  periodical  was  quoted  to  the  effect  that  two 
thousand  Indians  were  being  fed  at  state  expense  in  an  effort  to 
keep  peace,  the  flocks  were  all  destroyed,  and  the  state  whose 
evils  exceeded  its  resources  was  seeking  the  protection  and  aid  of 
the  central  government.  In  August  of  the  following  year  it  was 
stated  that  Indian  incursions  were  a  matter  of  daily  occurrence, 
the  number  of  their  victims  constantly  increasing.  Yet,  in  the 
midst  of  this  peril,  the  Governor  was  spending  his  time  publish- 
ing a  manifesto  against  the  Comandante,  the  Inspector  of  the 
Military  Colonies,  and  the  general  government.86  In  the  latter 
part  of  the  same  year  the  permanent  deputation  of  Chihua- 
hua reported  that,  since  the  Comanches  committed  their  crimes 
while  passing  through  that  state  on  their  way  to  and  from  Du- 
rango,  their  hostilities  were  of  a  minor  character,  but  the  Apaches 
were  the  terrible  enemies  which  "  daily"  afflicted  Chihuahua, 
carrying  that  state  rapidly  to  its  veritable  "desolation".87  Suc- 
cessful campaigns  waged  against  the  Indians  during  the  winter  of 

84  The  citations  which  follow  could  easily  be  multiplied.  I 

85  El  Universal,  June  1,  1850. 

86  Ibid.,  August  18,  1852. 

87  Ibid.,  November  17,  1852. 


THE    HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

1852-1853  inclined  them  to  sue  for  peace,  but  after  a  brief  respite, 
they  seem  to  have  resumed  their  accustomed  cruelties.88 

The  state  which  suffered  most  from  Indian  raids  was  Sonora. 
Our  authority  for  the  number  and  severity  of  these  raids  consists 
of  transcripts  from  files  of  El  Sonoriense.  a  Sonoran  newspaper, 
and  other  documents  of  the  Pinart  Collection.89  These  sources 
make  no  claim  to  be  a  complete  statement  of  injuries,  and  often 
make  such  references  as  " numerous  victims",  or  "many  dead  and 
wounded",  without  giving  a  specific  statement  as  to  the  number. 
Leaving  out  of  consideration  all  references  of  such  general  nature, 
a  careful  computation  has  given  the  following  results. 

In  1848,  Moctezuma,  Tubac,  Santa  Cruz,  Fronteras,  and 
Tumacacori,  together  with  adjacent  sections,  all  suffered  from 
Apache  raids  which  resulted  in  at  least  forty-six  deaths,  and 
Governor  Gandara  in  his  message  to  Congress,  September  18, 
declared  that  depredations  had  assumed  such  proportions  that 
there  was  no  longer  any  safety  on  the  highways.90 

The  year  1849  opened  with  several  terrible  raids  which  ex-, 
tended  as  far  south  as  the  vicinity  of  Ures.  From  January  10  to 
23,  eighty-six  persons  were  killed  and  sixteen  wounded,  while 
during  the  whole  of  the  year  the  Indians  levied  a  toll  of  one 
hundred  and  eighty-one  killed,  thirty  wounded  and  fifty-five  cap- 
tives. Few  towns  in  the  state  escaped  being  ravaged,  but  the 
principal  sufferers  were  Alamos,  Tepachi,  Bocoachi,  Batuc,  San 
Pedro,  Banamichi,  Bavispe,  Santa  Cruz,  Bozatan  and  adjacent 
sections. 

Peace  negotiations  continued  throughout  the  following  spring 
and  during  the  fall  vigorous  campaigns  were  waged.  Yet,  ac- 
cording to  reports,  one  hundred  and  eleven  Sonorans  were  killed, 
thirteen  wounded,  and  ten  captured,  while,  in  1851,  notwith- 

88  El  Universal,  November  25,  December  10,  21,  24,  28, 1852,  January  13,  Febru- 
ary 6,  May  4,  May  10,  June  28,  1853. 

89  The  title  page  of  these  manuscripts  which  consist  of  six  volumes  reads  as 
follows:  Documents  for  the  History  of  Sonora.    Extracts  from  MSS.  and  printed 
matter  in  the  collection  of  Mons.  Alphonse  Pinart.    Most  of  the  extracts  are  in 
English  and  they  cover  the  period  of  Sonoran  history  from  1784-1863.     There  are 
also  two  volumes  dealing  with  Chihuahuan  history. 

90  Pinart  Transcipts,  Sonora,  IV.  78-80. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED    STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  389 

standing  the  excellent  service  of  Jose  M.  Carrasco,  Inspector  of 
the  Military  Colonies  of  the  West,  and  Commander  of  the  fron- 
tier forces,  there  were  one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  killed,  forty- 
four  wounded,  and  a  number  taken  prisoner. 

In  1852  the  pages  of  the  Sonoran  paper  were  largely  taken  up 
with  the  filibustering  schemes  of  Raousset-Boulbon.  There  was 
specifically  reported  this  year,  however,  one  hundred  and  nineteen 
deaths  and  one  hundred  and  one  prisoners,  and  the  following 
year  reached  the  climax  for  the  period  with  a  total  of  two  hundred 
and  sixteen  deaths  and  thirteen  captives  reported.91 

Statistics  as  to  the  number  of  deaths,  captives  and  wounded — 
and  there  were  a  large  number  of  the  latter — serve  to  convey  only 
a  partial  idea  of  the  losses  of  the  frontier  states.  There  must  be 
taken  into  consideration  also  the  interruption  of  communications, 
the  paralyzation  of  industry,  the  destruction  of  ranches  and  ha- 
ciendas, the  theft  of  provisions,  stock,  and  everything  transport- 
able, and  the  constant  peril  under  which  the  inhabitants  lived. 
A  few  instances  will  serve  to  convey  an  impression  of  these  evils. 

An  incomplete  report  of  May,  1848,  stated  that  the  Apaches 
had  depopulated  or  obstructed  twenty-six  minerales,  thirty  ha- 
ciendas and  ninety  ranchos  in  Sonora.92  In  January  of  the  follow- 
ing year  the  acting  prefect  of  the  district  of  Ures,  in  a  letter  ad- 
dressed to  the  Governor,  urged  him  to  represent  to  the  National 
Government  in  strong  terms  the  plight  of  the  fifty-one  towns 
under  his  charge.  Fronteras,  Coc6spera,  Tubac,  and  three  other 
towns  had  been  completely  abandoned.93  Speaking  especially  of 
the  Rio  Grande  frontier,  the  Border  Commission  sent  out  by 
Mexico  in  1873  declared  that  one  of  the  greatest  damages  result- 
ing from  these  raids  "had  been  the  suspension  of  every  kind  of 
industry  and  the  lack  of  confidence  in  beginning  afresh  arising 
from  the  insecurity  of  the  fruit  of  their  [the  citizens']  labors".94 
The  permanent  deputation  of  Chihuahua  in  a  report  made  in 

91  For  the  Indian  raids  on  Sonora,  1851-1853,  see  Pinart  Transcripts,  Sonora, 
IV.  and  V. 

92  Pinart  Transcripts,  Sonora,  IV.  69-70. 

93  Ibid.,  IV.  107. 

>4  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  p.  257. 


390  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

the  latter  part  of  1852  declared  that  the  herds  of  that  state  had 
already  been  destroyed  and  the  fields  had  long  since  been  de- 
serted. It  then  gave  a  vivid  picture  of  the  Apaches  who  from 
their  hiding  places  constantly  sought  an  opportunity  to  "  pounce 
upon  the  yokes  of  oxen  which  graze  without  the  necessary  guard, 
the  mule  drove  which  leaves  the  corral  to  go  to  water, 
the  wood-cutter  who  .  .  .  goes,  with  two  or  three  asses 
which  are  to  carry  his  kindling,  to  seek  his  sustenance  in  the 
mountains,  the  luckless  drivers  of  the  carts  coveted  by  the  sav- 
ages for  the  oxen  which  draw  them".95  Finally,  one  of  the  papers 
of  Nuevo  Le6n  declared:  "The  first  thing  that  meets  our  eyes 
is  always  something  about  savage  Indians.  Agriculture,  indus- 
try, and  commerce  relapse  into  insignificance,  the  revenues  cease, 
tranquillity  is  lost  by  constant  fear  of  the  peril  which  threatens 
life,  honor,  and  family  interests;  all  in  short  presents  the  most 
doleful  picture  of  misfortune  and  desolation".96 

Reliability  of  the  Reports. — These  accounts  are  not  given  as 
absolutely  reliable.  The%  newspapers  consulted  are  no  more 
worthy  of  credence  than  the  average  newspapers  of  any  frontier 
section  clamoring  for  aid  from  the  central  government.  More- 
over, the  polemic  nature  of  the  report  of  the  Mexican  Commis- 
sion makes  one  a  little  skeptical  in  regard  to  its  trustworthiness. 
Three  hundred  and  sixty-six  claims,  amounting  to  $31,000,000 
and  arising  from  the  depredations  of  this  period,  were  presented 
to  the  Commission  created  in  1868,  but  they  were  never  con- 
sidered upon  their  merits.97  Nevertheless,  the  array  of  statistics 
presented  will  serve  to  give  the  impression  that  the  border  states 
were  in  a  lamentable  condition,  a  fact  which  is  not  denied  by 
United  States  officials  who  served  on  the  southwestern  border 
during  the  time.98 

95  El  Universal,  November  27,  1852. 

96  Quoted  in  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  p.  289. 

97  Moore,  History  and  Digest  of  International  Arbitrations,  in  House  Misc.  Doc. 
212,  53d  cong.,  2d  sess.,  pp.  1305-1308. 

98  See  especially  Report  of  Secretary  of  War,  in  House  Ex.  Doc.  2,  32d  cong., 
1st  sess.  p.  105  et  seq.;  Brooke  to  Scott,  May  28,  1850,  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  1,  part  II., 
31st  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  35;  Abel,  Official  Correspondence  of  James  S.  Calhoun,  pp. 
54-55,  160-162,  270,  394;  Report  of  Secretary  of  Interior,  in  House  Ex.  Doc.  2,  32d 
cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  502. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED   STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  391 

Mexican  Complaints. — Complaints  against  the  United  States 
for  failure  to  comply  with  treaty  obligations  were  numerous  and 
widespread.  The  Junta  of  Congress  formed  in  1849  for  the  super- 
vision of  matters  pertaining  to  the  defense  of  the  northern  fron- 
tier, declared  in  the  preamble  to  its  plan  that  since  the  fulfillment 
of  Article  XI.  by  the  United  States  would  furnish  the  means  of 
radically  terminating  the  Indian  War,  the  Junta  ought  never  to 
lose  sight  of  that  article.  It  recommended,  therefore,  that  the 
general  government  furnish  a  report  "upon  this  important  point, 
as  a  basis  upon  which  to  predicate  the  action  most  expedient  for 
the  welfare  of  the  states  in  question".99  Inspector  Jauregui  in 
his  report  to  the  Junta,  dated  July  8,  1849,  declared  that  no 
effective  defense  of  the  frontier  could  be  had  until  the  United 
States  lived  up  to  its  obligation.  In  1851,  the  sub-Inspector  of 
the  Chihuahuan  colonies  declared  that  Mexico  might  as  well 
cease  to  expect  the  United  States  to  restrain  the  Indians  and 
take  matters  into  its  own  hands;  the  sub-Inspector  of  the  East 
asked  permission  to  cross  the  Rio  Grande  in  pursuit  of  the  Indi- 
ans; and  complaint  after  complaint  was  raised  in  Sonora.100 
Finally,  the  plan  of  defense  formed  by  the  frontier  states  and  pub- 
lished in  February,  1852,  contained  the  following  article: 

"The  governments  of  the  coalition  will  earnestly  urge  the  su- 
preme national  authorities  to  obtain  from  the  government  at 
Washington  permission  for  the  Mexican  forces  to  cross  the  Rio 
Grande,  and  attack  the  nomadic  tribes  which  reside  in  that  terri- 
tory; without  omitting  to  demand  constantly  and  vigorously  the 
fulfillment  of  Article  XI.  of  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe,  and  an  in- 
demnification for  the  losses  which  the  frontier  has  heretofore 
suffered  from  the  non-fulfillment  of  that  article".101 

On  March  20,  1850,  La  Rosa,  the  Mexican  minister  at  Wash- 
ington, acknowledged  orders  of  the  United  States  War  Depart- 
ment which  Clayton  had  enclosed  in  confidential  notes  directed 
to  him  during  the  same  month.  La  Rosa  said  that  he  had  com- 
municated them  to  his  government,  and  that  due  credit  would  be 

99  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  p.  298. 

100  See  especially  Pinart  Transcripts,  Sonora,  IV.  113,  244-245. 

101  Mexican  Border  Commission  of  1873,  Report,  p.  340. 


given  to  the  attempts  to  fulfill  Article  XI.  but  he  declared  that 
previous  efforts  of  the  United  States  to  that  effect  had  been  unsuc- 
cessful from  "the  want  of  military  force  sufficient  to  restrain  and 
repress  the  Indians,  and  from  the  want,  moreover,  of  funds  to 
cover  the  great  expenses  rendered  necessary"  by  the  article.  He 
was  persuaded  that  the  only  advantage  which  could  accrue  to 
Mexico  from  the  late  treaty,  the  only  advantage  which  could 
"  compensate  her  for  the  many  sacrifices"  which  that  agreement 
"rendered  necessary"  was  the  exact  fulfillment  of  the  stipulation 
in  regard  to  the  Indians.  To  obtain  this  the  Minister  considered 
his  chief  duty.  In  conclusion  he  declared  that  Mexico  would 
"continue  ...  to  use  all  its  efforts  for  the  repression  of 
the  tribes  on  those  frontiers".102 

In  December  of  the  same  year,  La  Rosa  again  called  attention 
to  the  Indian  incursions.  He  reminded  Webster,  now  Secretary 
of  State,  that  it  was  "daily  becoming  more  and  more  indispens- 
able that  the  government  of  the  United  States  should  adopt  the 
promptest  and  most  active  measures  in  order  to  prevent  . 
the  incursions  of  the  Indian  savages  of  the  United  States  upon  the 
population  of  the  Mexican  frontier".  He  expressed  the  confident 
hope  that  Congress  in  accordance  with  the  President's  recom- 
mendation, would  give  the  matter  "all  the  attention  which  its 
importance"  required.  He  was  especially  anxious  in  regard  to 
the  matter  in  view  of  the  season  of  the  year  and  the  weakened 
condition  of  the  frontier  population  resulting  from  the  failure  of 
their  crops.103 

The  Abrogation  of  Article  XL — The  first  intimation  that  the 
United  States  was  contemplating  means  of  obtaining  a  release 
from  the  obligations  of  the  article  is  found  in  a  letter  addressed 
by  Letcher  to  Webster  under  the  date  of  December  14,  1851. 
In  this  communication  the  American  Charge  complained  that 
certain  benevolently  disposed  gentlemen  of  New  York  and  Wash- 
ington City  had  ''warned  her  [Mexico]  in  the  most  solemn  manner 
against  making  any  agreement  to  change  the  eleventh  article  of 
the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo".  Six  days  ago  he  declared 

102  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  44,  31st  cong.,  1st  sess. 
1M  House  Ex.  Doc.  4,  31st  cong.,  2d  sess. 


INDIANS   TN   UNITED    STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  393 

that  he  had  had  the  "  fairest  prospect  imaginable"  to  procure  a 
change  "altogether  satisfactory"  to  his  government.  The  ad- 
vances of  these  gentlemen  had  broken  into  his  plans,  but  fortu- 
nately he  had  never  committed  himself  upon  "this  subject,  in 
any  manner  whatever".  He  still  believed  he  should  be  able  to 
obtain  the  desired  change.104 

Early  in  January,  1852,  the  new  Minister  of  Relations,  Jose"  F. 
Ramirez,  declared  that  from  the  first  moment  he  had  put  himself 
in  relations  with  Letcher  (September  or  October,  1851),  this  func- 
tionary had  indicated  his  willingness  to  settle  all  the  difficulties 
between  the  two  countries.  "After  repeated  and  lengthy  con- 
ferences", Letcher  had  agreed  that  the  points  to  receive  early  dis- 
cussion should  be:  "1st.  A  modification  of  the  treaty  of  Tehuan- 
tepec.  2d.  The  same  in  regard  to  the  eleventh  article  of  the 
treaty  of  Guadalupe.  3d.  and  4th.  A  settlement  of  mutual 
claims  between  Mexico  and  the  United  States."  Ramirez  com- 
plained because  the  United  States  Charge  had  as  yet  failed  to 
take  up  the  matter,  and  went  on  to  declare  that  in  laying  down 
the  bases  upon  which  negotiations  were  to  proceed,  he  had  main- 
tained that  the  modification  of  Article  XI.  should  be  "upon  the 
ground  of  facilitating  the  fulfillment  of  its  conditions,  and  of  ren- 
dering its  purpose  effective",  since  the  United  States  alleged  that 
it  was  "impossible  to  accomplish  this"  as  the  treaty  then  stood. 
Moreover,  he  took  a  step  in  advance  of  La  Rosa  by  demanding 
that,  "in  virtue  of  this  obligation — contracted  and  not  fullfilled 
— means  should  be  devised  to  indemnify  Mexico  for  the  fatal 
consequences"  which  had  resulted.105 

During  the  remainder  of  the  year  negotiations  regarding  the 
Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec  took  precedence  over  all  other  ques- 
tions, so  that  the  subject  of  Indian  depredations  seems  in  a 
measure  to  have  been  passed  over.106  But  Mexico  had  not  for- 
gotten the  matter.  Under  date  of  August  12,  1852,  the  Minister 
of  Relations  requested  that  the  Governor  of  Sonora  have  pre- 
pared a  detailed  statement  of  Indian  raids  perpetrated  upon  his 

104  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  97,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess.  p.  105. 

105  Ramirez  to  Letcher,  June  3,  1852,  ibid.,  pp.  124-125. 

106  Ibid.,  pp.  125-163;  Senate  Rep.  355,  32d  cong.,  1st  sess. 


394  THE    HISPANIC   AMEKICAN   HISTORICAL    REVIEW 

state  with  a  view  of  obtaining  damages.107  Harper's  Magazine 
reported  that  the  Constitutional,  the  official  organ  of  Mexico  City, 
contained  the  announcement  that  negotiations  had  been  entered 
upon,  the  object  of  which  was  the  release  of  the  United.  States 
from  Article  XI.  for  the  sum  of  $6,000,000. 108  In  November  of 
the  next  year,  James  Gadsden  communicated  to  Mexico  his  ob- 
jection to  the  article.109  The  matter  was  finally  settled  by  the 
Gadsden  Treaty  which  freed  the  United  States  from  the  obliga- 
tions entailed  by  Article  XI.  of  the  former  treaty. 

Article  III.  of  this  treaty  provided  that  Mexico  should  be  paid 
$10,000,000  for  the  new  boundary  designated  in  Article  I.  and  for 
relieving  the  United  States  from  responsibility  for  the  Indians.110 
How  much  was  to  be  paid  for  each  of  these  considerations,  or  the 
amount  of  indemnity  asked  by  Mexico,  is  not  known.  The  corre- 
spondence concerning  the  negotiations  has  never  been  published. 
While  the  House  was  considering  the  appropriation  to  carry  the 
treaty  into  effect,  Jones  of  Pennsylvania  declared  that  it  was  a 
wellknown  fact  that  Mexico  had  presented  with  vouchers  claims 
amounting  to  $16,000,000,  while  reports  were  circulated  to  the 
effect  that  $40,000,000  had  been  demanded.  Other  members 
believed  that  they  had  been  credibly  informed  that  Fillmore  had 
offered  first  $5,000,000  and  then  $7,000,000  for  freedom  from  the 
obligation.  At  any  rate,  the  debates  show  considerable  anxiety 
to  be  rid  of  a  responsibility  which  might  cause  no  little  trouble  in 
the  future.111 

CONCLUSION 

The  United  States  assumed  responsibility  by  the  treaty  of 
Guadalupe  Hidalgo  for  the  conduct  of  the  Indians  on  the  borders 
of  Mexico  because  that  country  would  not  otherwise  consent  to 

107  Pinart  Transcripts,  Sonora,  V.  128. 

108  November,  1852,  p.  836. 

109  Herbert  E.  Bolton,  Guide   to  materials  for    United  States  History  in  the 
Archives  of  Mexico  (Washington,  1913).     Bolton  gives  the  year  1852,  but  this  is 
perhaps  a  misprint  as  Gadsden  did  not  present  his  credentials  to  the  Mexican 
government  until  August  18,  1853.     Harper's  Monthly,  December,  1853,  p.  835. 

110  Malloy,  Treaties,  I.  1122-1123. 

111  Globe,  33d  cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  1520-1542. 


INDIANS   IN   UNITED    STATES-MEXICAN   DIPLOMACY  395 

part  with  the  territory  desired.  Had  the  difficulties  of  the  obli- 
gation been  fully  realized,  perhaps  the  agreement  to  restrain  the 
veritable  multitude  of  Indians  residing  in  the  new  domain  and 
upon  the  borders  of  Texas  would  have  been  entered  upon  with 
no  little  hesitancy.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  official  of  the  United 
States  knew  neither  the  number  nor  the  nature  of  these  tribes, 
nor  could  they  have  had  any  definite  conception  of  the  cost  of 
subduing  them.  Moreover,  this  enormous  problem  thrust  itself 
upon  the  government  at  a  time  when  the  slavery  issue  made 
impossible  rapid  and  unbiased  action  in  regard  to  the  Southwest. 
Consequently,  six  years  passed  before  a  well-defined  policy  regard- 
ing the  Indians  in  question  was  adopted. 

From  this  distance  it  would  seem  that  the  only  adequate  way 
of  dealing  with  the  problem  would  have  been  to  place  the  tribes, 
by  means  of  sheer  force,  upon  reservations  remote  from  the  bound- 
ary line  where  they  could  have  been  held  in  surveillance  by  the 
combined  efforts  of  an  efficient  corps  of  agents  and  a  strong  mili- 
tary force  consisting  mainly  of  cavalry.  If  Congress,  bent  upon 
economy  and  retrenchment,  failed  to  provide  for  this,  at  least 
that  body  might  have  been  expected  to  extend  the  laws  regulating 
trade  and  intercourse  with  the  Indians  over  the  natives  of  the 
Southwest.  Even  this  measure,  however,  was  neglected  entirely 
with  regard  to  Texas,  and  for  almost  three  years  in  the  case  of 
New  Mexico. 

Therefore,  a  small  number  of  Indian  agents  who  were  handi- 
capped by  insufficient  means  and  lack  of  legal  aid,  along  with  a 
military  force  inadequate  both  in  kind  and  in  number,  were  left 
to  deal  with  the  situation  as  best  they  could.  They  were  in- 
structed to  keep  the  treaty  obligations  to  Mexico  in  mind;  and 
the  delivery  of  Mexican  captives,  as  well  as  the  provisions  of  the 
various  Indian  treaties  made,  evidenced  the  fact  that  their  in- 
structions were  not  forgotten.  Yet  these  forces  were  by  no  means 
able  to  handle  the  situation. 

It  may  be  said  to  the  credit  of  the  central  government  of 
Mexico,  and  of  the  Mexican  frontier  states,  that  they  made  no 
inconsiderable  effort  to  defend  themselves.  The  former  en- 
deavored to  organize  the  militia  and  to  plant  military  colonies 


396  THE   HISPANIC   AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

along  the  northern  frontier,  while  the  latter  offered  scalp  and 
prisoner  bounties,  and  formed  a  coalition  for  defence  from  the 
common  peril.  If  these  plans  proved  ineffective,  it  was  due  not 
so  much  to  lethargy  and  indifference,  as  to  sparseness  of  frontier 
population,  an  empty  treasury,  and  political  convulsions  which 
rendered  a  consecutive  policy  out  of  the  question. 

There  is  ample  evidence  that  the  population  of  the  North 
Mexican  States  suffered  grievously  from  Indian  depredations  dur- 
ing the  period  under  consideration.  These  unfortunate  people 
complained  both  of  inadequate  assistance  from  their  home  gov- 
ernment and  of  lack  of  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 
Their  complaints  were  communicated  to  Washington  with  the 
request  that  more  efficient  measures  be  taken  to  restrain  the 
Indians.  At  first,  little  or  nothing  was  said  concerning  indem- 
nity, but  gradually  this  became  an  important  factor,  so  that  the 
United  States  grew  more  and  more  anxious  to  free  itself  from  a 
responsibility  which,  under  the  circumstances,  could  be  fulfilled 
only  with  great  difficulty.  Negotiations  to  this  effect  were  begun 
as  early  as  December,  1851,  but  other  matters  deemed  of  greater 
importance  interfered  until  two  years  later  when  the  desired  re- 
lease was  obtained  by  furnishing  a  bankrupt  government  means 
which  contributed  to  the  maintenance  of  its  solvency.  How 
much  of  the  $10,000,000  paid  Mexico  by  the  third  article  of  the 
treaty  of  1853  was  considered  as  indemnity  and  how  much  was 
allowed  for  what  has  become  known  as  the  Gadsden  Purchase,  is, 
in  the  absence  of  documentary  evidence,  impossible  to  ascertain. 
From  the  speeches  made  in  the  House  while  the  appropriation  of 
the  necessary  sum  was  under  discussion  it  seems  evident  not  only 
that  the  members  of  that  body  considered  a  large  portion  of  the 
amount  as  damage  money,  but  that  release  from  the  obligations 
of  Article  XI.  had  no  little  weight  in  determining  the  vote  upon 
the  measure.  Indeed,  it  may  have  been  a  more  influential  factor 
than  the  route  for  a  Pacific  railway  which  the  change  of  boundary 
was  designed  to  acquire. 

J.  FRED  RIPPY. 

University  of  California 
October  22,  1918. 


